Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 50

Thread: How far back should yiou stand

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Devon
    Posts
    349
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 21/0
    Given: 0/0

    Default


    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    "You seem to think the laws only apply if an umpire is present" - no, many of the 'Laws' do, but Law 13.3 clearly does require it, and its penalties only apply "If the umpire ... decides...": the words are clear and specific and unambiguous and I simply can't read that any other way (although you clearly do, but are unwilling to explain why). It is L13.3 that brings in the words "interefered with ...annoyed.. distracted", they do not go automatically with who has possession.

    I would never wish to be an umpire, especially if it means seeking to impose my own beliefs without having to defend them by reference to the Laws of our sport.

    As to Laws I believe "acceptable" - that is entirely irrelevant; what is relevant is that I believe all the Laws should be applied as written, as I accept that, as a body and individually, they are the rules that govern and regulate our sport, and I would hope that I abide by them all when playing. What I do not find acceptable, is anyone trying to apply them in some way that cannot be justified by the words in which they are written, and which they do not even attempt to justify.

    You seem to be in a minority here, John - that doesn't necessarily make you wrong, but if you want to convert us, either back your words up, or... end of story.


    Last edited by corptaxman; 23-04-2019 at 09:21 PM.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    West London la la la
    Posts
    3,093
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 16/1
    Given: 92/0

    Default


    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by john haydock View Post
    He decides if you are distracting not you
    Blimey John! You've gone off on a bit of a tangent here mate. I'm not sure where this "distracting" or "annoying" element has come from in this thread, but it doesn't appear relevant in this instance.

    Mike (a relatively new bowler) didn't mention anything about him distracting or annoying his opponents, but just purely about rink possession. And if what he says he was doing is true (a couple of yards back and a yard to the side, fairly standard position), then I fail to see what he is actually doing wrong. If the reason he was being asked to move to the back of the rink WAS because he was being distracting or annoying, he can still be distracting or annoying at the back of the rink can't he? He'll still be in the skips view/eye line a few yards further back, so this is clearly not the issue or situation here. And if anything, being asked to stand at the back of the rink without good reason other than "rink possession" every single time your opponent is on the mat is more likely to cause an "annoyance" and create situation during the game.

    As has been stated, it's mainly about etiquette and common sense. And maybe his opposite number truly believes that rink possession actually means that no opponent should be between the furthest back bowl and the man on the mat. So basically taking rink possession to the extreme without actually realising that he's being a tad OTT with this "LAW".

    So lets take this back to the original question. Assuming Mike has explained the scenario correctly, and all he is doing is standing there behind the head and to the side just watching and waiting for the oppo to bowl and he is asked/requested to stand right at the back of the rink every single time, is it reasonable for Mike to ask why and even stand his ground as long as he his not obstructing, distracting or annoying his opponent? Or is just simply stating "rick possession" a good enough reason and that's it? As I said earlier, of course there are occasions when players (from both sides) are asked to move to the back of the rink for positional/back bowls. But to just say "Rink Possession" is taking it rather to the extreme.
    Last edited by Wingnut!!; 24-04-2019 at 09:10 AM.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    44
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 2/0
    Given: 0/0

    Default


    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by john haydock View Post
    There is very little point discussing this with you,because you will always have the last word,I said the opponent decides if he is being annoyed,if he did not decide he was then the problem would not arise,his opponent is hardly likely to suggest he is annoying you is he..You seem to think the laws only apply if an umpire is present. I think you would actually like to rewrite the law book to suit yourself,because you seem unable to accept it in its present form,.If you think it is okay for your opponents to stand in front of the players in possession of the rink .I hope you never become an umpire because by the time you have explained your views the rest of the games will be over, are there any LAWS which you think are acceptable. End of story.
    And herein lies a problem. Often, when I've had discussions with experienced bowlers in the clubhouse over a beverage about a Law that I'm unsure about or unclear about, I get conflicting answers always based around their 'many years experience', usually peppered with tales from the past. Unfortunately, none are based around the factual laws. Then, when faced with the black and white factual law, they resort to bullying tactics and unpleasantness rather than just accepting they've learned something. Whats wrong with, "Wow, well, in all my years I never knew that!", move on and enjoy the beverage. It rarely seems to happen in bowls for some reason.

    The law here regarding 'distraction and annoyance' is surely aimed at the player on the mat and the annoyance effecting their delivery not anyone else (unless skip becomes involved at his teams request)? eg. If my opponents are in possession and I click my pen up at the head and annoy my fellow lead, he can claim Law 13.3 even though he isn't on the mat to bowl or even down at the mat end? As soon as we have possession back I can click away to my hearts content? Common sense would dictate that isn't what the Law is intended for.

    Most games are played in a good spirit with teams respecting the other's right to a fair game. Occasionally you come across a knob and an 'atmosphere' develops but almost all requests I see regarding players positioning at the head are instigated by the player about to bowl and dealt with politely and without incident. Very rarely the person being asked to move away from the boundary marker or back a pace is disgruntled but most do it with little hesitation if asked nicely. No incident, no hassle. To request something out of the ordinary is always going to meet with resistance so why do it? What was the motivation of Mike's opponents? They must have a fun set of games each week!

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    suffolk
    Posts
    1,935
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 47/3
    Given: 2/0

    Default


    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Wingnut!! View Post
    Blimey John! You've gone off on a bit of a tangent here mate. I'm not sure where this "distracting" or "annoying" element has come from in this thread, but it doesn't appear relevant in this instance.

    Mike (a relatively new bowler) didn't mention anything about him distracting or annoying his opponents, but just purely about rink possession. And if what he says he was doing is true (a couple of yards back and a yard to the side, fairly standard position), then I fail to see what he is actually doing wrong. If the reason he was being asked to move to the back of the rink WAS because he was being distracting or annoying, he can still be distracting or annoying at the back of the rink can't he? He'll still be in the skips view/eye line a few yards further back, so this is clearly not the issue or situation here. And if anything, being asked to stand at the back of the rink without good reason other than "rink possession" every single time your opponent is on the mat is more likely to cause an "annoyance" and create situation during the game.

    As has been stated, it's mainly about etiquette and common sense. And maybe his opposite number truly believes that rink possession actually means that no opponent should be between the furthest back bowl and the man on the mat. So basically taking rink possession to the extreme without actually realising that he's being a tad OTT with this "LAW".

    So lets take this back to the original question. Assuming Mike has explained the scenario correctly, and all he is doing is standing there behind the head and to the side just watching and waiting for the oppo to bowl and he is asked/requested to stand right at the back of the rink every single time, is it reasonable for Mike to ask why and even stand his ground as long as he his not obstructing, distracting or annoying his opponent? Or is just simply stating "rick possession" a good enough reason and that's it? As I said earlier, of course there are occasions when players (from both sides) are asked to move to the back of the rink for positional/back bowls. But to just say "Rink Possession" is taking it rather to the extreme.
    As i have already said Mike is not the one who decides he is not annoying etc.that is the opponents, and the Advice to Mike to stand his ground is in my opinion Is crazy,Mike should move as requested and confirm the situation later. Someone else on this site thinks that the law does not apply because there is no umpire ,I assume then that there conditions of play at his club which will probably state games will be played I.A.W CM3 and state which laws are to be ignored. If the answer is not contained in Rink Possession then where is it covered.Out of interest Mike was the one who mentioned Rink Possession in his question so it is relevant to the answer.
    No Grey Areas

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    West London la la la
    Posts
    3,093
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 16/1
    Given: 92/0

    Default


    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by john haydock View Post
    As i have already said Mike is not the one who decides he is not annoying etc.that is the opponents, and the Advice to Mike to stand his ground is in my opinion Is crazy,Mike should move as requested and confirm the situation later. Someone else on this site thinks that the law does not apply because there is no umpire ,I assume then that there conditions of play at his club which will probably state games will be played I.A.W CM3 and state which laws are to be ignored. If the answer is not contained in Rink Possession then where is it covered.Out of interest Mike was the one who mentioned Rink Possession in his question so it is relevant to the answer.
    So basically what you're saying is that when you're in possession of the rink and you have a short jack, you can pretty much dictate where you want your opponents to stand eg... on the bank or at the far end of the green? Even though your opponents are doing nothing other than just standing 2-3 yards behind and to the side of the head and watching (Mikes words), you have the right to cite the rink possession rule to request your opponents stand 15 yards behind the head if you so wished? Correct?
    Last edited by Wingnut!!; 24-04-2019 at 10:24 AM.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In front of a computer !!!
    Posts
    1,390
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 18/0
    Given: 2/0

    Default


    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    ....Or on the bank, .....or even in the clubhouse!
    Just because they are feel "annoyed"/"distracted" without any basis in the laws for that "annoyance"/"distraction"?

    Maybe they just don't like your face (Wingnut - you might be spending the entire season in the clubhouse, with a bag over your head )
    Thirty years of hurt, never stopped me dreaming!

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    West London la la la
    Posts
    3,093
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 16/1
    Given: 92/0

    Default


    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by RG Bargy View Post
    ....Or on the bank, .....or even in the clubhouse!
    Just because they are feel "annoyed"/"distracted" without any basis in the laws for that "annoyance"/"distraction"?

    Maybe they just don't like your face (Wingnut - you might be spending the entire season in the clubhouse, with a bag over your head )


  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In front of a computer !!!
    Posts
    1,390
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 18/0
    Given: 2/0

    Default


    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    That's better. Far less annoying!
    Thirty years of hurt, never stopped me dreaming!

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Devon
    Posts
    349
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 21/0
    Given: 0/0

    Default


    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    "Mike should move as requested and confirm the situation later" - by which time he may have become increasingly annoyed and put off his game if the No2 continues to do it! Why? That is simply giving in to an unreasonable demand that cannot be justified by the Laws.

    "
    Mike was the one who mentioned Rink Possession in his question so it is relevant to the answer" - of course it is : you need to know who has possesion under L12 and 13.1 to consider a scenario under L13, but that does not itself decide anything - L.13 then needs to be considered on the merits of the case. What would happen if Mike had complained that he was being interfered with from taking a position perfectly in compliance with L12? Well, his side was not in possession, so L13.3 does not apply to his complaint for that reason if no other; equally, in our case, L13.3 cannot apply because the necessary conditions for it to come into play (umpire present for starters: John, you still do or cannot say why that clear condition/requirement should be ignored: this is the crux of our difference) do not exist - and if 13.3 does not apply the whole question of whether annoyance etc has occured - a phrase within 13.3, preceded by a failed "if", so not relevant - does not need to be decided and no breach of an inapplicable law can have occured.

    I, and others, just don't see that you have a justifiable case, here John. Either justify your view by reference to the wording of the Laws or....



  10. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Devon
    Posts
    349
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 21/0
    Given: 0/0

    Default


    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    John,

    Let's approach this from less formal viewpoint - although true Laws should be viewed formally in my opionion. Feel free to stop me at any stage in this list, if you do not agree:

    - you think that only a player can decide if he is being annoyed etc : I wouldn't disagree, although it would be equally difficult for anyone else to determine if he was telling the truth, or playing mind games of some sort - unless he gives a reason, it simply can't be disputed.

    - you believe that L13.3 should apply solely by reference to that players simple statement of annoyance etc; I disagree, because of the clear wording of the law as set out; it is necessary to have a 3rd party involved, not to determine the issue, but simply to come to a decision on it.

    - you believe that just the player need make the annoyance claim ; I would again disagree, because 13.3 clearly requires an appeal by the Skip involved, if the umpire does not unilaterally get involved: the wording is plain, and leaves no grey area or room to cut out those words or bring in any others.

    - you believe that L13.3 should impose a penalty solely on the word of a non-Skip player, without any support from his Skip, and without a 3rd party having been involved to impose a semblance of reason/fair-play; I disagree, for the above reasons, and because its sounds very much like a Star Chamber decision (I nearly said Kangaroo court, but don't want to annoy our friends in Oz!)

    If it's 'yes' to all, and your interpretation of the Laws should be taken as correct, then bowls is not the sport I thought it to be.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •